However, using torture to advance political objectives, to justify aggression, to establish “links” where there were none, to whip up a nation into attacking another nation on false pretenses (pretenses that the adminsitration tried to establish through torture as early as in 2002) is an entirely different matter.

I've never thought it made sense to apply the Christian view of morality when the actors involved are nations instead of individuals. Our Christian view of individual actions advocates a willingness to supinate one's own interests when another person treats us with aggression- at least to a point. There is then a point when self defense is considered morally permissible, when the agression threatens one's life (although martyrdom is considered the ultimate imitation of Christ, it's still not required of us.)

But for a nation to supinate itself, it almost always can lead to existential threats because of the nature of power struggles between tribes/nations which has been with us since the beginning of mankind.

So I don't ascribe to the viewpoint that nations should be held to the standards that our individual consciences (IMO) should, of turning the other cheek. I've always found that the more liberal Catholics travel too far down that road in applying our social teachings.

At the same time though, we can't abandon all moral standards by any means, and clearly some actions are not defendable even if there's a sense of peril for the nation.

I have been re-reading the Henriad cycle lately, and Pete's post brought this question to mind.

As you noted in your response, Dr. E . . . this is an important question, especially for the religiously inclinced. This seems to be getting lost in the simple Left/Right politics.

For example. I was watching a recent, rather bleak, BBC documentary series “The Lost World of Communism”…and was struck how many true believers of those states believed in their systems.
Would they torture American spies under the belief they were acting in defense of their countries? (Of course, we know they did…and worse in what they did to their own people).

Thus, I think Pete does raise an important argument about human ethics here.

dr.e

It is unfortunate that this has become another Left/Right issue…as this is an important question.

In reading Pete's excellent post referencing Christian morality on torture — I am reminded of how Shakespeare addressed this issue in his history plays.

Shakespeare's view was, in brief, that you really do not want to run a country based on Christian principles.

Henry VI was his treatment of a saintly, decent king who tried to rule based on Christian principles, and who as a result “lost France and made his England bleed”

The “hero” of the history cycle is, of course, Prince Hal…later Henry V…a ruthless, devious monarch, who conquered France inspiring his troops (”Once more unto the breach…”) and terrifying the French with speeches like:
“The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds”

Shakespeare's point is that absolute moral lines have little to do with politics, or with the survival of a nation…when threatened from within or without.
(What mattered to Shakespeare was having a leader who could keep order…and whom the endlessly quarrelling nobles and the church were both terrified of. )

Absolute morality can mean the destruction of a nation from the best of intentions.

In modern times:
President Lincoln, as is well known, suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.
President Roosevelt interned the Japanese.

Historians generally find Lincoln's act to have been at least justifiable — Confederate agents were a severe threat in the North — and Roosevelt's to be unjustifiable.
Both are regarded as great Presidents.

Thus, I question whether Christian morality and absolute moral lines are the best way to view these complex questions — especially when no “GAIN” is obtained.

In general, while I disagree with Pete's thesis…I believe he makes an excellent point.
Sadly, I think the significance of this debate will be lost in the politics.

a recently declassified Senate Armed Services Committee report purports the use to torture may have begun earlier than originally thought (December 2001) and that the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were a result of high level White House decisions on detainee treatment.

Timothy Noah dispelled the story that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed resulted in a confession that prevented a “second wave” attack on Los Angeles. 

and finally, that legislators of both parties were complacent about the torture

Cabinet officials and Republican and Democratic key Congressional committee chairs were provided outlines of the Administrations torture program without objection. 

That last one is hearsay, since none of the legislators were allowed to publicly comment or object, but I can't deny the possibility that Dems were too cowardly to say, “no way. That's torture.” If true, shame on them too.

Sometimes I wonder when I see a quote, what was said beforehand. And what was said after, to see more context, know what I mean?

dr.e

I think it's a pretty fair bet he would abandon his casual attitude somewhere part way into waterboarding #1.